Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure european examples are a great comparison. First, most european wealth taxes (including recently defunct ones) have much lower floors than US proposals. $1m instead of $100m. That changes a lot. France did experience "capital flight," famously Gerard Depardieu. Second, "capital flight" has always been present in Europe. There's a long history of it, and practical realities make it relevant. I do agree abo…
> One point that PG does address which is often skipped over is that a wealth tax is a "deplete billionaires" policy It has long been my impression that eliminating or reducing billionaires is the primary goal of wealth tax advocates other than those whose advocacy primarily consists of sharing memes on social media. Raising revenue is largely a red herring.
Reducing billionaire wealth, or limiting its growth is st stated aim. Piketty and like minded economists argued for it directly. The political proposals (eg Warren's) were also straightforward.
It is a red herring, but money always is when it comes to politics. They all have stuff they want to fund.
By Picketty's math, 2%-2.5% is roughly break-even. That is, average billionaire wealth will grow in proportion to the economy & wages. Less, they will grow more slowly relative to the economy. Above 2.5%, millionaire wealth will decrease, relative to the size of the economy.